You're surely quite busy, being Governor of a large state (Florida, in this
case), but I'd like to offer some helpful guidance to you (and ask for
representation: I'm one of your constituents) on a matter you'll face
shortly.

You'll shortly be presented with CS/HB 7013: Adoption and Foster Care,
which passed both House and Senate. See e.g., http://flsenate.gov/Media/PressReleases/Show/2225
(SENATE PASSES LEGISLATION TO HELP CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE FIND ADOPTIVE
FAMILIES). It's 'controversial,' but good, and I would ask you sign
it – Here are my reasons:

As you probably remember, I'm a “far-right” pro-life, “pro-marriage”
Conservative Republican, who once almost won in court as Terri Schiavo's 'next
friend,' losing a close 4-3 nail-biter –and doing better, even than your
predecessor, Gov. Jeb Bush: both of us got past the clerk (who rule on
“technical issues”) and our cases, therefore, were voted on “on the
merits,” by The Justices themselves: Jeb lost 7-0, and I lost 4-3, before
the same panel:

So, you can assure yourself that I'm a pro-life, pro-marriage Christian,
and a far-right-wing Conservative Republican. Now, to the case at hand: While I
haven't reviewed every aspect of CS/HB 7013, I listened to the
entire 2nd and 3rd readings and debate of the bill, and all parties agree most
of the bill is without controversy - and good.

Since most of the bill wasn't controversial, I'll focus
only on that small portion that
was 'controversial': When the bill was in the House,
Rep. David Richardson (D-Miami Beach-113) introduced an amendment striking the
'gay adoption ban' language found in §63.042(3), Fla.Stats.: “No person eligible
to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.” [The
amendment passed with little or no opposition: I don't even see a vote history
on it.]

When it got to the Senate, there was debate on that matter, and both times,
the Senate agreed with the House's amendment, but not without
controversy, so that's why I'm writing you.

******* LONG-STORY-SHORT: I'm a far-right
conservative, who opposes 'Gay Marriage' and the 'Gay Agenda' in all it's forms,
but even I (and the Republican-controlled HOUSE and Republican-led SENATE) have
no problems with this provision, and I ask you to trust
the 'Conservative Elders' (myself, the house, and
the senate) and sign this bill into law.

******* “LONG” STORY—in case you need details: Even
after I've repeatedly signed up for these “no-call” lists, nonetheless, I got an
unsolicited spam Robo-Call from “Florida Family Action,” based in neighboring
Orlando. When I inquired about it, they were good enough to send me an email,
clarifying their positions: They opposed CS/HB 7013 for 3
reasons: (1) The bill strikes the language in Florida law
which prohibits homosexuals from adopting children. (2) The
bill will hurt children because it will eventually lead to the closing of
faith-based adoption agencies exactly like what happened in Massachusetts after
they legalized same sex marriages. (3) The bill has no
"conscience clause" with express preemption to protect faith based adoption
agencies being attacked by local non-discrimination ordinances which create a
new protected class in sexual orientation, gender identity and gender
expression. 23 such ordinances exists in cities and counties across
Florida.

I'll address all 3 of their concerns:

(#1) First, they are wrong on point #1 – which I will show
below.(#2) Point #2 above is unclear: where is the 'cause and
effect'? They do not show how/why?

(#3) I think a 'conscience clause' might be a good idea in some cases:
Faith-based hospitals, for example, should not be forced to perform abortions.
However, a 'conscience clause' could NOT, for example, allow a place like Bob
Jones University, in South Carolina, from prohibiting interracial dating, as it
has done in the recent past. So, whether a 'conscience clause' would be good to
allow, say, a faith-based adoption agency to prohibit adoptions to persons who
are 'gay' would be a “close call,” which I will address when I address point #1
above.

LEGAL: As you know, a state appeals court found that the Florida statute
prohibiting adoption by homosexuals had “no rational basis” and thus violated
their equal protection rights: Fla. Dept. of Children and Families v. In
re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Fla. 3d DCA, No.
3D08-3044, Opinion filed September 22, 2010.

PRACTICAL: Moreover, as Sen. Don Gaetz rightly pointed out in debate, DCF
currently allows singles to adopt, some of whom are in “Same Sex” relationships.
So, besides being a bad law (which was rightly removed from the books), the
matter is also moot: “Gay Adoptions” are going on anyway, so, as a “practical
matter,” it was not changing anything to remove the bad law.

MORALS and SCIENCE: The most important point, however, is whether 'gay
adoptions' are 'good' or not, and actual science will tell us the answer to
that:

See, for example, the “DECLARATION OF LOREN MARKS, PH.D.,” page 20, in
Searcy, et al. v. Strange, No. 11:14-cv-208-CGM (S.D.,Ala.
2015), where a small, but statistically significant, group of children were
compared, and all things being equal, married couples had the best development
from objective teacher reports (and not biased parental reporting), and next,
singles, and lastly, homosexual rearing. In other words, “on average” gays did
worse even than singles or marrieds, but, in some cases, they were the 'best'
option for a child that would otherwise wind up in foster care, a ward of the
state, or – worse yet – live on the streets.

So, in plain-English, what this means is that “just as” it would be stupid
(and morally wrong) to prohibit singles from adopting, it would also be
“likewise” stupid (and morally wrong) to have a ban on gays adopting.

But, on the other hand, since Marrieds do better than both groups, it is
not 'discrimination' to show preference “for” Married Couples and “against”
singles, but rather, for a 'compelling state interest. Therefore, it would also
NOT be 'discrimination' to show preference against gays as well. (But a
distinction must be made between gay lifestyle – actions – and gay “orientation”
which is merely a preference or a temptation. The two are similar, but
distinct.)

PRACTICAL PART-2: Besides being stupid, and going against plain science, if
we left §63.042(3) in place, it would make us 'Conservatives' look like hateful,
prejudiced bigots. (Most of us are NOT haters, and for that reason, I am boiling
mad at the FFA for their advocacy: their actions make it infinitesimally more
difficult for 'true' conservatives, like myself, to defend '1 man-1 woman'
marriage, as I am doing in the United State Supreme Court, and, as outlined in
the press releases above. Moreover, these rich and powerful so-called
conservatives are not helping me in the least, while I languish in deep credit
card debt, defending what they claim to support: If these FFA people be true
Conservatives (or true Christians), why are they not helping offset the huge
money they have, with any of my projects: my bid to
save Terri Schiavo –or my bid to defend Biblical Marriage in Nation's High
Court wherein I incur huge FedEx, Postal Service, Printing, and Press
Release Cost$? I will give them one more chance to actually use their financial
talent for good, insofar as I cc copy them in my email to you. I Would
appreciate any donations to offset the costs detailed in these 5 links:

However, I do not write you looking for a donation or
handout: Rather, I would rather suffer debt, if that debt
results in a proper defense of “both” the definition of marriage (as 1 man and 1
woman) “and also” a prohibition against the unnecessary discrimination, hate,
and discontent that resulted from §63.042(3), Fla.Stats.:[“No person eligible to
adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.”],
which will be rightly and correctly removed from the books-if this
bill is signed into law, as it should be.

In short, most of these 'Gay Marriage' issues are Federal in nature, and
not able to be resolved by you, a “State” governor, but, in a few cases, there
are indeed state issues. This adoption bill appears good, and I would
respectfully ask you to sign it into law.

You may, if you like (but do not have to) quote me as an influence from
your constituency—should you issue a press release.

PS: Sen. Kelli Stargel, who voted against this bill, is a true
Conservative, and I am privileged, also, to call her a trusted friend; but, with
all due respect, I stand in direct opposition to her vote: she did not represent
me today. Please sign this into law, and, as I said above, cite me as a source,
if you like, in any and all statements to the press or whomever.

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was
not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a
Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a
trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for
me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and
Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper
&Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the
American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and
Family Publications.Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying:
"Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a
Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he
DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews
first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped,
&other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get
"practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their
neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "Speak up now or
forever hold your peace!"-GWW